It is agrotesque misapprehension which sees in art no more than a craft comprehensibleperfectly only to the craftsman: art is a manifestation of emotion, and emotionspeaks a language that all may understand. But I will allow that the critic whohas not a practical knowledge of technique is seldom able to say anything onthe subject of real value, and my ignorance of painting is extreme.Fortunately, there is no need for me to risk the adventure, since my friend,Mr. Edward Leggatt, an able writer as well as an admirable painter, hasexhaustively discussed Charles Strickland's work in a little book(1) which is acharming example of a style, for the most part, less happily cultivated inEngland than in France.

Maurice Huretin his famous article gave an outline of Charles Strickland's life which waswell calculated to whet the appetites of the inquiring. With his disinterestedpassion for art, he had a real desire to call the attention of the wise to atalent which was in the highest degree original; but he was too good ajournalist to be unaware that the "human interest" would enable himmore easily to effect his purpose.

老实讲，把艺术看作只有名工巧匠才能完全理解的艺术技巧，其实是一种荒谬的误解。艺术是什么？艺术是感情的表露，艺术使用的是一种人人都能理解的语言。但是我也承认，艺术评论家如果对技巧没有实际知识，是很少能作出真正有价值的评论的；而我自己对绘画恰好是非常无知的。幸而在这方面我无庸冒任何风险，因为我的朋友爱德华·雷加特先生既是一位写文章的高手，又是一位深有造诣的画家，他在一本小书里①对查理斯·思特里克兰德的作品已经作了详尽的探索；这本书的优美文风也为我们树立了一个典范。很可惜，这种文风今天在英国远不如在法国那么时兴了。

①《一位当代画家，对查理斯·思特里克兰德绘画的评论》，爱尔兰皇家学院会员爱德华·雷加特着，1917年马丁·塞克尔出版。（作者注）

莫利斯·胥瑞在他那篇驰名的文章里简单地勾画了查理斯·思特里克兰德的生平；作者有意这样吊一下读者的胃口。他对艺术的热情毫不搀杂个人的好恶，他这篇文章的真正目的是唤起那些有头脑的人对一个极为独特的天才画家的注意力。但是胥瑞是一个善于写文章的老手，他不会不知道，只有引起读者“兴味”的文章才更容易达到目的。